1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (for short, the State Commission), the Opposite Parties – Indian Overseas Bank (Petitioners herein) filed the present Revision Petitions No. 752-753 of 2014 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was allowed and the Opposite Parties were directed to refund Rs. 1 lakh towards loss, compensation and cost to the Complainant.

2. Aggrieved by this Order dated 15.12.2011 of the District Forum, both the parties filed two cross Appeals before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 03.10.2013, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Opposite Party and allowed the Appeal filed by the Complainant with cost of Rs. 5,000/- and further, the compensation being enhanced to Rs. 3 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts. 

4.  I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the record.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent / Complainant was having an account with the Petitioner Bank which issued an international Visa debit card as the Respondent was working in Abu Dhabi. The card was misused in another country and an amount of Rs. 2,77,814/- was withdrawn from the account of the Respondent. He submitted that the Bank would not be liable for the misuse of the card. He referred to the condition no. 10 of the terms and conditions, which is as under:

10.       The Cardholder shall get his passbook updated at least once in a month. The Cardholder shall inform the Bank in writing within seven (7) days from the statement date or from the date of completion of his passbook of any irregularities or discrepancies that exist in the transaction details at an ATM / Merchant establishment / Internet. If no such notice is received during this time, the Bank will assume the correctness of both the transaction and the statement of account / passbook and the Bank will not be liable for claims / representations made by the cardholder subsequently.” 

6. He further submitted that the Bank does not issue statement of account and it is for the customer to obtain the statement of account and update his passbook at regular intervals. This had not been done by the Respondent.
7. Nobody appeared for the Respondent, but written arguments has been filed on behalf of the Respondent / Complainant. It was submitted that when he could not withdraw money from the ATM by using his debit card as the same was declined due to insufficiency of fund in his account. When he returned to India and inquired from the Bank branch, it was revealed that around Rs. 2,77,000/- was withdrawn from his account by using ATMs situated in Brazil, Argentina and few other places, but he never visited these countries. It was also mentioned that the mobile alert facility was not provided to the Complainant. There were 73 fraudulent withdrawals from his account amounting to Rs. 2,77,814.19.
8. The District Forum held the Bank deficient of service by not providing the mobile alert facility. Further the statement of accounts was not being provided to the Complainant including the transaction details. The District Forum directed the Petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the Respondent / Complainant for the deficiency in service. When an Appeal was filed by the Petitioners before the State Commission, the same was dismissed, but the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3 lakh alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till realisation.
9. The main argument of the Respondent / Complainant is that if there was a mobile alert provided, this fraudulent withdrawal of his money would have been deducted earlier and therefore, prevents any further withdrawals. Further, when transactions were taking place in different suspected countries, the normal step taken by the Banks is to block the card. Evidently, this was not done and was done only when there was no amount left over in the account. I also do not find the argument of the Petitioners valid that no statement of account was sent and that it is the responsibility of the customer to check the same. This is also not a very convincing ground taken by the Petitioner Bank. Definitely, there had been deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity and the jurisdictional error in the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. No new facts or issue of law have been raised, which have not already been considered by the State Commissioner and the District Forum. However, the enhancement of compensation to be paid to the Complainant by the State Commission is without any proper reason and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the District Forum’s Order needs to be upheld.
10. In view of the concurrent findings, I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held as under:

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercise only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the court below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.” 

4. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. ( 2016 8 SCC 286) decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:

 “23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reason” 

5. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022 , wherein it was held as under: 

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-Bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the Order of the District Forum upheld.